Cfd Simulation Of Flow Field In

An Inject Pipe Mixer

K. S. Sudeep and S. Murthy Shekhar
School of Biotechnology, Chemical and Biomedical Engineering
VIT University, Vellore -632014
The Inject Pipe Mixer (IPM) are being used as venturi injectors and can also
homogenize two fluids. The entry of secondary fluid as a jet influences flow field in
the device. A CFD simulation of flow through an IPM (L- shape) has been carried out
using ANSYS CFX 11.0 using water as the flowing fluid to understand the flow field
under turbulent flow conditions using standard k-- model. The results of simulations
indicate flow field dependence on both main pipe velocity and side pipe inlet velocity.
The flow field depends on V and W components and U component contributes very
marginally. The velocity magnitude depends on location inside the geometry.

1. Introduction
Inject Pipe Mixer (IPM) is used to homogenize same or different fluids either at same
or different temperatures. It can also be used when tracer elements or additives need to
be introduced into the main flow stream. IPM is a simple energy conservation device
which can enhance heat transfer and fluid mixing, without any external device. These
devices are simple in construction, fabrication and also application. A typical sketch of
an IPM is shown in Fig. 1. The performance of an IPM depends on material of
construction, geometry and flow field. For a given material and geometry, flow field
depends on the type of jet which in turn depends on diameter of main and side pipe,
point of attachment of side pipe on to the main pipe, nature of the fluid, velocity of the
fluid, operating pressure and temperature and surface roughness of the pipe. Although
simple in design and construction, little is known about inside flow field and
performance.
A literature of relevance to present work, was the study of Hosseini S.M. et al. (2008).
The above study was based on usage of Particle Image Velocitymetry (PIV) technique
to understand heat transfer mechanism. In their study, Hosseini et al. (2008) have
reported flow inside an IPM dependence on curvature ratio of the bend, axial distance
between the bend and T-junction area.

2. CFD simulation
In the present work a three dimensional model of the Inject Pipe Mixer shown in Fig. 1
has been simulated. The above geometry has been created and meshed using ANSYS
Workbench and CFX Mesh Module respectively. The simulations have been carried
using a finite volume based commercial CFD code ANSYS CFX 11.0 developed by
ANSYS Inc., USA respectively. The details of the geometry have been given in Table -

1. The major regions defined were main inlet, main outlet, and side pipe inlet. All other
regions have been set as wall.
Table - 1 : Dimensions of IMP
Geometry

Fig. 1 Schematic Diagram of IPM

Dimension

Main Pipe Diameter (m)

0.051

Side Inlet Diameter (m)

0.021

Length of Main pipe (m)

2.0

Height of Main Pipe (m)

2.0

Height of side pipe (m)

0.3

Radius of Curvature

450

To obtain the required flow field, solutions have been obtained by solving the basic
governing equations viz., continuity equation and momentum equations with inlet
velocity normal to main inlet and side inlet as boundary conditions or input parameters.
Further, no slip condition was imposed at the walls. The characteristics of flowing fluid
was considered to represent water by imposing a density and viscosity value of 997.0
kg/m3 and 0.001 Pa.s. All the simulations have been carried out assuming steady state
conditions for velocities varying from 1 to 3 m/s. With the above velocities, Reynolds
number was found to vary from 50,847 to 1,52,541 indicating turbulent flow. Hence, all
the simulations have been carried using Standard K- model. The solutions have been
obtained imposing coupled solver approach using advection scheme with high
resolution and a convergence limit of 1 x 10-5.

3. Results
3.1 Grid independence and validation
The accuracy of the CFD simulation results depends on stability, consistency and
convergence criteria envisaged in the simulations. The accuracy of simulations also
depends on the number of grid elements used in the simulations. Hence, simulations
have been carried out using mesh volumes varying from 178724 to 187689 by varying
body spacing on the geometry from 0.12 to 0.06, wherein decrease in body spacing
value leads to increase of number of mesh volumes. The grid independence study and
validation have been carried out at main and side pipe inlet velocity of 3 m/s, which
represents highest Reynolds number for the present study. The simulated results have
been verified for variation in velocity magnitude of fluid stream across the radial
direction, at various locations viz., Line 1: 1.0 m from inlet, Line 2: 0.0 m normal to the
point of injection and Line 3: 1.0 m below the outlet. The variation in magnitude of
velocity at Line 1 has been shown in Fig. 2. The figure indicate, only marginal change
in the velocity profile with increase in mesh volumes, indicating number of mesh
volumes are used in the present study are sufficient to predict the flow profile. A
similar agreement in results have been observed even at Line 2 and Line 3 respectively
Hence, further simulations have been carried out at total mesh volume of 1,85,653
representing a body spacing of 0.08 in order to minimize computational time.

V
elocity(m
/s)

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
-0.53

0.12m
0.09m
0.08m
0.06m

-0.52

-0.51

-0.5

-0.49

-0.48

-0.47

Dis tance (m)

Fig. 2 Velocity magnitude at Line 1 for different body spacing values

Velocity(m/s)

Further the grid independent results have been validated by comparing the velocity
profile obtained at Line 1, with the Prandtls 1/7 power law relation valid for prediction
of velocity profile for turbulent flow. A comparison of the CFD results and the
correlation are shown in Fig. 3. The figure shows a good agreement of results in the
core central region, and small deviation near the wall. The small deviation is due to
weakness of the Prandtls correlation in estimating velocities in the near wall region.
The good agreement of results, validate the procedure envisaged to predict the flow
field in the IPM using CFD.
4
3

CFD

C orrelation

1
0
0.03

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

R a d iu s (m )

Fig. 3 Comparison of velocity magnitude of CFD and Prandtls correlation

3.2 Flow Field
With reasonable grid independence and validation results, velocity distribution viz.,
velocity magnitude, U, V and W components along radial direction at Line 1, Line 2
and Line 3 are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4(a) representing velocity distribution at Line 1,
shows W velocity component contributes substantially to the velocity magnitude when
flow is along the horizontal direction, while contribution of U and V components are
small in magnitude and nearly small in comparison with W component. Fig. 4(b)
representing the velocity distribution at Line 2, indicates an higher magnitude of
velocity due to the entry of fluid from side pipe. A higher degree of variation exists in
the zone of side pipe fluid entry leading to absence of symmetry in flow distribution
found at Line 1. The velocity component contributing to the velocity magnitude has
swapped from W to V component. The radius of curvature has influenced the flow
distribution and contribution of different components to velocity magnitude. Further it
can be seen that there is no change in the U component velocity distribution across the
cross section. From Fig. 4(c) of Line 3, it can be seen that, the velocity magnitude
across the cross section has approached a constant value of 3.5 compared to 3.1 for Line
1. Again, significant change is the shift of major contribution for velocity magnitude
to V velocity component in contrast to W velocity component at Line 1. The flow
distribution of U and W velocity component exhibit symmetry but are of small
magnitude. From visualization of all the above plots, it can be inferred that,
contribution of U velocity component is very small but overall distribution pattern

Velocity, U,
V & W (m/s)

depends on location. A vector plot obtained from the simulated results showed
streamlined pattern with magnitude of vector varying along the flow direction
depending on the location in the IPM.
5

Velocity
U
V
W

3
1
-1
-0.53

-0.52

-0.51

-0.5

-0.49

-0.48

-0.47

Distance ( m)

Velocity, U,
V & W ( m/s)

Fig.4a Velocity magnitude and velocity components at Line 1

5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
0.45

Velocity
U
V
W

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

Distance ( m)

Velocity, U,
V & W (m/s)

Fig. 4b Velocity magnitude and velocity components at Line 2

5
3
1
-1
0.47

Velocity
U
V
W

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

0.53

Distance ( m)

Fig. 4c Velocity Magnitude and velocity components at Line 3

3.4 Effect of Main Stream Fluid Velocity
The performance of IMP has been verified for effect of main pipe velocity between 1 - 3
m/s and side pipe velocity of 3 m/s. The results of flow profile in terms of velocity
magnitude at Line 1 and Line 2 are shown in Fig.5a and5b respectively. Fig. 5a shows
increase of velocity magnitude with increase in inlet velocity and velocity distribution
symmetric across the cross section. The flat distribution over the cross section except
near the walls resembles a typical turbulent flow profile. But Fig. 5b shows, velocity
magnitude increasing with increase in velocity and asymmetric velocity distribution due
to addition of fluid from side pipe. The influence of side pipe velocity has been found
to decrease with increase in main pipe velocity. Further it has been observed that, at
Line 3 (figure not shown) velocity distribution has been found to exhibit trend similar

Velocity ( m/s)

to that at Line 1, but with a higher magnitude profiles due to addition of fluid from side
pipe.

5
4
3
2
1
0
0.47

1 m/s
2 m/s
3 m/s

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

0.53

Distance (m)

Velocity ( m/s)

Fig. 5a Velocity magnitude for varying main inlet velocities at Line 1

5
4
3
2
1
0
0.45

1 m/s
2 m/s
3 m/s

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

Distance (m)

Fig. 5b Velocity magnitude for varying main inlet velocities at Line 2

V Component ( m/s)

Further analysis of components of velocities indicated that, the magnitude of U

component velocity to vary from -1 x 10-4 to 0.0 with increase in input velocity. The
distribution of V component at Line 2 has been shown in Fig. 6. The figure shows, V
component velocity increasing with increase in main velocity. A comparison with Fig.
5b shows, magnitude of V component is very close to the velocity magnitude values
indicating it as a major contributor to velocity magnitude at Line 2. The peak values
velocities in between the radial distance of 0.49 to 0.51 were found to be due to side
inlet fluid velocity. The distribution of W velocity component at Line 2 is shown in
Fig.7. It shows, the W velocity contribution to the magnitude of velocity decreases with
curvature transferring the kinetic energy to the V velocity component.

4
3
2
1
0
0.45

1 m/s
2 m/s
3 m/s

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

Distance (m)

Fig. 6 V Component velocity for different main inlet velocities at Line 2

W component ( m/s)

4
3
2
1
0
0.45

1 m/s
2 m/s
3 m/s

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

Distance (m)

Fig. 7 W Component Velocity for different main inlet velocities at Line 2

Velocity ( m/s)

3.5 Effect of side stream velocity

The effect of side inlet velocity has been verified by varying for side inlet velocity from
0 3 m/s for different main inlet velocities. The side inlet velocity of 0.0 m/s represent
flow in a bend. The variation in velocity magnitude along radial distance at Line 2 is
shown in Fig. 8. The velocity magnitude shows increase in value with increase in side
stream velocities. But no appreciable change in the flow pattern, except in the zone of
the side inlet fluid flow.

5
4
3
2
1
0
0.45

SI 0m/s
SI 1m/s
SI 2m/s
SI 3m/s

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

Distance (m)

Fig. 8 Velocity magnitude at Line 2 for different side pipe velocities

4. Conclusions
From the study undertaken for determination of flow field of an IPM, it can be
concluded that, CFD technique can be used for understanding about the performance of
IPM. The flow field depends on the main inlet velocity as well as side inlet velocity.
The flow distribution is mainly function of V and W velocity with 90o bend. The flow
distribution also depends on the percentage contribution of side inlet flow to the main
flow. Further investigation about the effect of temperature and roughness are being
investigated.

5. References
Hosseini Seyed Mohammad, Kazuhisa Yuki, Hidetoshi Hashizume, 2008 ,Classification
of turbulent jets in a T-junction area with a 90-deg bend upstream Classification of
turbulent jets in a T-junction area, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
51, 2444-2454